ahhhh...*stretches*

First of all, when I was 14, I used to have these biblical arguments with this guy who thought he was real "clever".

Example:

I'd make the statement, "God can do anything except fail."

Then, he'd say, "If God can't fail, then he can't do anything."


^^Philosophical debates with someone who is just as backwards as you can get.
************************************************** ***
ANYWAY KIDDIES...If you want to win arguments, here's how you do it:


#1...Set your own ground rules for the argument.

Example: Make a thread called, "Proof that so-and-so is thus-and-so. Then, state, "If so-and-so doesn't respond, this PROVES they are thus-and-so.

^^The groundwork is laid. But, that's only 1/2 way there.


#2...Then, you BAIT someone into an argument with you about a topic that remotely relates to the aforementioned thread.


Example: So-and-so is fake because they believe thus-and-so, and yet, thus-and-so clearly states that so-and-so isn't this or that.


Now, the tone is inflammatory. But, the target of such a thread will no doubtedly reply because of #1.


Here's how to win arguments, even when you're flat out wrong.


Person A states: All wiggums are black. And, anything black is strong.

Person A concludes: Therefore, all wiggums are strong.


Person B says: Hold up person A. I know for a fact that ALL wiggums aren't strong because I saw a wiggum snap the other day.

Person A says: NO. You're wrong. All wiggums have to be strong because they are black. And, anything black is strong.


Person B then says: But, I don't agree that everything black is strong. To which person A says, "You're wrong, because all wiggums are black and they are all strong."

In essence, Person A has created a loop hole which allows them to win the argument by default. If Person B takes the bait, there's no way they can win an argument based on the points stipulated by person A. The truth is, Person B may not see all things black as strong. But, assuming what Person A says is true, then what person A concludes is valid. However, the problem is, not everyone accepts the "rules" of the argument from the start.


Now, on RV, most people seem to think that if enough people agree with you, then that makes something valid or true. No so.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it true or valid. Therefore, if Person A makes a thread called "So-and-so is a thus-and-such" and enough people flock in and agree, then, by default Person A seems "right" because he's set his own ground rules to which person B can't defend against. However, assuming all things equal, person B could then reject person A's initial conjectures and set the rules himself. How?


Person A makes a thread called "So-and-so eats BLAH because they look BLEH"
......
Person B can then enter the thread and say "Prove that eating blah makes you look bleh and that it's not some other factor."

Person A would then have the burden of proving their statement isn't just circumstantial and incidental.


How do you win an argument being wrong? It's simple. Set your own rules and you win by default.


Thank you.


1

__________________

Youtube Video for my song "CARRY ON"